You are on page 1of 5

Improving the voltage profiles of Distribution

Networks using multiple Distribution
Generation Sources
M. F. AlHajri, Student Member, IEEE, and M. E. El-Hawary, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract-- Installing Distribution Generation (DG) in the
distribution level has positive impacts on the system voltage
profile as well on the substations’ capacity. However the extent
of such benefits depends greatly of the DG size and location.
Heavily loaded systems need more than one DG to rectify the
voltage profile and to achieve other DG promised benefits. In this
paper the number of Distribution Generators (DGs) and their
sizes are investigated thoroughly for installing single and
multiple DGs.
The optimal DG number and sizing are
formulated as NonLinear Programming (NLP) problem subject
to boundary restriction and nonlinear equality and inequality
constraints imposed on the system. In this paper, a radial
distribution case study comprises of 33-Bus is tested. A
comparative study is performed to evaluate three DG situations.
The original system with no DG added is evaluated first, then
single and multiple DG installations are assessed later in this
research.
Index Terms-- Distribution generation, DG optimal number,
DG optimal sizing, Nonlinear programming, Radial distribution
system.

I. INTRODUCTION

I

N the turn of the last century, utility holding companies
controlled 80% of the electricity market in the united states.
Single company could own more than one power utility
company through massive purchase of their stocks. Of the
total of electricity, 45% was owned by only three of those
firms. In 1929 the Great Depression took place and
bankruptcy stared and continued as a chain reaction causing
investors to lose money due to the abuse exercised by such
holding companies. Congress issued an act in 1935 called the
Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) restricting
holding companies form buying more than one utility
company in order to avoid any kind of misconduct. Such act
restricted buying and selling electricity to utilities only.
However, DG began to have a vital role in the electricity
market after the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). PURPA requires the utilities to purchase electricity
Grid
for ‘qualifying facilities’ at their avoided cost1.
interconnection was not allows until the early nineties after the
commencement of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).
978-1-4244-1583-0/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE

Such act opened the transmission lines for competition in the
electricity market. That is electricity could be sold or bought
of any size, fuel and/or generation technology form utilities or
DG [1].
DG is any small-scale size of electricity generation located
at or near the consumers’ load [2]. DG have been gaining
increased popularity as important integral components of
modern power systems in recent years for various reasons.
Restructuring of the electric power industry and recent
environmental awareness are two of the main factors that led
to the rapid growth in utilizing different DG technologies in
electric power generation.
Late developments in DG
technology also lead in its deployment worldwide. A study
performed by Electric Power Research Institute and by
Natural Gas Foundation projected that 25 to 30% of the new
installed electric generation will be DG [3;4].
Distribution generation encompasses a wide range of
technologies, such as combined heat and power gas turbine,
diesel generation, microturbines, fuel cell, photovoltaic, and
wind turbines. Such technologies are driven either by fossil
fuel-based or sustainable energies.
Integrating DGs into Radial Distribution System (RDS)
have many positive influences. Those positive impact could
be summed as enhancing the system voltage profile;
minimizing the network real power losses; deferring
transmission and distribution upgrades, and releasing capacity
of an exiting distribution infrastructure as well as overhead
transmission lines paving the road for future expansion.
Nevertheless, there are also some negative impacts caused
by incorporating the DG. One of them is the voltage rise
caused by the bi-power flow direction[5]. Concerns raised by
environmentalists regarding the wind turbine giant blades
toward birds’ deaths during their migration seasons, is another
negative impact of DG.
Installing DG is not a trivial optimization problem; it needs
careful consideration for the topology of the existing
distribution network, the size specification of the DG to be
installed, the existing substation capacity, and the DG type
itself. Voltage security is of a particular interest especially in
heavily loaded distribution networks. In some cases, multiple
DGs installation is required to maintain the network voltage
levels within proper limits. For an optimal operating strategy,
the placement and sizing of DGs technologies have to be
addressed carefully.

295

:imaginary part of complex quantity. :conjugate of complex quantity. ℑ{S ij } 2 g ij = −bij Vi − Vi V j  g ij sin δ ij + bij cos δ ij  . ℜ {Sij } 2 = g ij Vi − Vi V j  g ij cos δ ij + bij sin δ ij  . DG are the lower and upper bounds respectively. :branch ij conductance. S DGi :ith DG size. Sij : = ℜ {Sij } + j ℑ{ Sij } . Heuristic techniques tends to converge slower than its deterministic counterparts[11]. The objective function is mathematically expressed as follows: DGi D   ∆Qi = Qisp − QiD − ℑ ( ei + jf i ) ∑ ( Gik − jBik )( ek + jf k )  k ∈i   NB: No. S ji ≤ Sijmax (5) max S xfmr ≤ S xfmr (6) :No. Residential. NB ∆Qi = 0 i = 2. NB Where nDG ℑ (•) (4) } max Sij . [9] utilized Tabu-Search hybrid methodology in solving the DG NLP problem. section III is the test results and discussion. V is the operating voltage. φ min b DG (8) DG ≤ pf max and φ max b (9) are the lower and upper bounds of the bus voltage Vb and the bus voltage angle.3. of DGs to be installed. as shown below ∆Pi = 0 i = 2. (2) V  P = Po    Vo  (3) where α (10) β   ∆Pi = Pi − Pi − ℜ ( ei + jfi ) ∑ ( Gik − jBik )( ek + jf k )  k i ∈   sp ≤ SS / S { II. :feeder ij thermal limit. The optimal DG size to be installed in a RDS is that which minimizes the network real power losses.…. The load characteristic model is expressed as an exponential form among other representations as shown mathematically in (10) and (11).13]. the DG sizing problem is formulated as a NLP optimization problem subject to equality and inequality constraints. The active and reactive load powers are modeled as constant power. Ref [6-8] proposed to solve the optimal DG sizing problem using Genetic Algorithm (GA). commercial and industrial Loads are usually represented as a function of voltage at the load bus in static load modeling.In this research. their total size is not to exceed that of the one DG case.… . and to have reliable results the system loads are to be properly modeled. The V  Q = Qo   (11)  Vo  Vo is the reference voltage. of RDS buses Inequality constraints deals with the DG size itself and the RDS feeders. the optimization problem is solved by Sequential Quadratic Programming deterministic (SQP) technique. α and β are the exponents which determine the load characteristics. and the last section offers conclusions. α = β=0 for constant power model and α = β=1 for constant current model whereas the impedance model would be represented by α = β=2. Ref. Accurate and proper load modeling is of significant concern in power distribution systems as well its transmission systems counterparts [12. In the endeavor of integrating DG optimally into RDS. φb . • V :(1xNB) nodal voltages vector : (NBxNB) admittance matrix Y The equality constraints are the nonlinear power flow equations. S The nodal complex voltages and the DG power factor are restricted as follows: Vbmin ≤ Vb ≤ Vbmin (7) max xfmr φbmin ≤ φb ≤ φbmax DG pf min ≤ pf min b where V min b . in addition to boundary conditions imposed on the RDS. The proposed method is used in scrutinizing the optimal size of single and multiple DGs to be installed in RDS. pf minDG and pf max of the DG power factor. Po and Qo are the active and reactive powers respectively consumed at the reference voltage. The paper is organized as follows: Section II is the problem formulation. V . •* :vector or matrix transpose. Specific α and β values lead to a specific lode model. Thermal capacity of transformer. Such formulation is solved by Heuristic and deterministic techniques. Such constraints are expressed mathematically as shown below: nDG ∑S i =1 min ( * ℜ VY V *t ) (1) where: ℜ ( • ) :real part of complex quantity. That is. That is for the case of multiple DG installations. 296 . SS / S :substation capacity. 3. constant current and constant impedance or combinations of these. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION Optimizing the DG sizing is formulated as a NLP. Sijmax Sij :complex power transmitted from bus i to bus j. Such objective function is subjected to highly nonlinear equality and inequality constraints and to boundary restrictions imposed on the system. In this paper. current flow in feeders is to be kept below its thermal limits. •t :complex quantity. bij :branch ij susceptance. Particle swarm optimization heuristic technique was used as another way of solution by [10] to locate single DG.

TABLE I VOLTAGE PROFILE FOR THE PRE-DG CASE 297 TABLE II SINGLE INSTALLED DG POWER SIZE AND CORRESPONDING SYSTEM REAL POWER LOSSES . Pre-DG Case:The RDS–33 is heavily loaded system with total losses of 301.861 -1. If the candidate bus is not available Table 1 shows other alternative locations for the DG installation that has comparable losses. As a remedy of such situation a single DG is to be installed to minimize the losses and to keep the voltages within limits. 1 shows the optimal losses for a DG installed at every single bus at the RDS–33.892 -0.9166 pu in the single DG case. however voltage values though enhanced the voltage boundary conditions were violated.261 0.868 -0. in heavily populated areas the amount of noise pollution is restricted by banning noisy DG from being utilized at cer bus.615 0.815 0.920 0. SQP. From herein the DG will be treated as PQ bus and modeled as a negative load injected in the RDS. see [14] for details.549 0. TEST RESULTS The optimal DG sizing problem is investigated using 33– bus RDS for single and multiple DG installations.910 0. AMD® Athlon® 64x2 Dual Processor 5200+. DG Bus Locations 450 400 Power Losses (kW) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 33 RDS−33 Bus Locations Fig. The deterministic method.903 0.66 kV. This system is a modified system of that provided by Baran and Wu [16]. A single line diagram of the investigated system is shown in Fig. As an example.860 -1. The losses are decreased by 51% by installing DG at aforementioned bus.467 0. The DG is modeled as a PV-controlled bus or as a PQ load bus.878 0.864 -0. Corresponding power losses for proposed DG installation at all RDS– 33 system buses Fig.6 GH and 2 GB of memory desktop computer.866 -0.879 0. the solution method successively approximates the proposed nonlinear constrained objective function into a quadratic programming subproblem using Taylors expansion at the current iteration value.143 0.884 -0. Table 1 shows the violated bus voltages in the pre-DG case.85.202 0. As the name indicates.032 0.344 0.Certain load components would be represented by fractional exponents. Power Losses vs. The proposed DG power factor in this paper is 0. Single DG Case:Fig. 2.47 kW and lower than 0.886 0.860 pu.880 -0.95 pu bus voltage values.371 0.922 -0.691 0. The substation is considered to be the slack bus and has a nominal voltage of 12. In many times not necessarily that the optimal location is available for the installation process.483 0.880 0. 1.902 -0.047 0. Most DG representation is of the latter[15].882 -0. 1. In this paper both loads are represented as constant power models. Table 1 shows that for the active power losses to be minimal.568 0.924 0. RDS–33 Single line diagram The nonlinear constrained optimization problem simulations were carried out within MATLAB® computing environment using HP®. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 III.874 0. That is the minimum voltage in the pre-DG case is 0. is utilized in optimizing the DG size. The base MVA used in computation is 1000 kVA and the base voltage kV is the same as the nominal voltage.580 0. Table 2 shows the voltage violation in busses 9 through 18 for the proposed installation of DG at bus 29. Voltage (pu) Angle (º) 0.568 B.579 0. the DG is to be installed at bus 29. Bus No.871 -0. A. Choosing any bus form the above table minimized the network losses.584 0.927 0. 2. That is the DG will supply real at a specified power factor regardless of the system voltage.891 0.743 0. RDS–33 encompasses one main feeder and three laterals with a total real and reactive power demand of 5201 kW and 3220 kVAR respectively. and the minimum voltage is enhance to 0. The reactive and reactive load is increased by 40% in order to have a heavily lossy system for investigating the optimal number and size of the proposed DGs.

Arabi. "Installation. CA.54 156.9903 0.18 147.9800 0.9817 0.3385 -0. Philipson and H. Understanding Electric Utilities and De-Regulation. Hatziargyriou. TF 38.67 1451. Palo Alto.2003.DGBus 29 28 30 27 26 7 DG Power (kW) 2535.06 67. "Prospects for Distributed Electricity Generation.18 with an optimal size of 2535.63 1661.1261 -0.9203 -0.9792 0.9831 0.9855 0.9803 0.0248 -0. Usaola." Congress of the United States.9843 0.9812 0.9274 -0. L.76 67. Consequently integrating more than one DG greatly would satisfy the equality and inequality constrains imposed on the system. Takasaki.3268 -0.9166 pu at the single DG case. Double DG Case:In the endeavor of minimizing the RDS active losses as well as keeping the voltage profile within limits among other constraints imposed on the system.38 kW and enhanced the bus voltages considerably as shown at Table V.04 10 30 1094.9867 0.2628 0.e. TABLE IV DOUBLE DG CASE POWER SIZES AND CORRESPONDING SYSTEM REAL POWER LOSSES DG Bus DG Bus DG1 Power DG2 Power Power Losses 1 2 (kW) (kW) (kW) 14 30 952." CIGRE.1157 0.9813 0.1452 -0. "CIGRE technical brochure on modeling new forms of generation and storage. The study shows that installing single DG at a heavily loaded system is not enough for enhancing the voltage profiles. Willis.81 1618.9822 0. J. November.9359 -0.9813 0.1624 0. Lasseter.41 kW. 2003. The combination of 14 and 30 buses kept the losses at minimal at 67. M." EPRI.4583 11 0. and Size were investigated thoroughly.2333 -0.9472 -0. S. September.8581 18 0.7579 IV.9979 0. .5860 0.36 69. Papathanassiou. J. 2 ed CRC Press. operation. feeders. Voltage (pu) Angle (º) 9 0.96 153.65 1554.9972 0. while the losses decreased by nearly 54% for the same overall size of the two DGs.9704 0. 10.0879 -0.0989 -0. 2006.60 68. and S. the minimum voltage increased to a 0.7509 17 0.3729 10 0.1054 -0.9380 -0. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] 298 L. It is found that by integrating the DG into the distribution network.0100 0. While the minimum voltage was 0. the real power losses were minimized.74 71.15 71. A.94 72.1958 -0. A.9166 -0. CONCLUSION In this paper the DG optimal No.9175 -0.9222 -0. and maintenance costs for distributed generation technologies. H.38 13 30 980. 2000.42 2391.4323 13 0. two DGs are to be installed on buses 14 and 30.55 Voltage 1 0. …etc.19 Bus No. Chao.1341 -0.9750 0.85 14 29 924.9854 0.3165 0.).9771 0.05 1473.0301 -0. the voltage profile was enhanced as well as several benefits like hindering imminent upgrade for the existing system (i.47 1610. Donnelly.9797 Angle(º) 0 0.0676 0.9871 0. K. Table IV shows lowest power losses results by installing two DGs at different bus combinations.9392 -0. Congressional Budget Office (CBO).9922 0.1692 -0.9801 0.0051 -0.11 2677.41 2674.9912 0.8714 C.74 2679. transformers.78 70. In the double DG case the Power loss is lower than that of the single DG case.84 148.9847 0.9795 0.0985 -0.9242 -0.9814 0.9893 0.2249 0.8988 0.9704 pu in the two DGs integration.73 12 30 1062. Efthymiadis.09 Power losses (kW) 147.7187 16 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 TABLE III VIOLATED VOLTAGE VALUES FOR THE SINGLE DG ZASE Bus No.27 2678.9866 0. N. In the single DG case the losses were 147.35 1583.9778 0.6666 15 0.26 1441.61 15 30 916.9884 0.9848 0.7956 0.7674 0. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This document TABLE V VOLTAGE PROFILE FOR THE DOUBLE DG CASE VI. Karoui. R.2051 -0.48 157.96 16 30 873. Pecas Lopes.4483 12 0. 01.1595 0. M.1596 -0.5578 14 0.8020 0.1546 0. V.94 11 30 1083.

Oo. vol." Proceedings of the IEEE. "Distributed Generator Placement in Power Distribution System Using Genetic Algorithm to Reduce Losses. 2004. 62. 10. G." Electrical Power Quality and Utilisation Journal. vol. ESPINOZA. Thongh. pp. 3. Morana. Gandomkar. C. no. V." IEEE Transaction on Power Systems. 7. 1401-1407. and F. P. E. 1. "A Genetic-Based Tabu Search Algorithm for Optimal DG Allocation in Distribution Networks. "Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Optimal Distribution Generation Sizing and Allocation in Distribution Systems. de MOOR. and M. E. "Recommended Practices for Distribution System Analysis. B. E. no. M. 2007. R. p. V. Baran and F. I. W. Mo-Shing and W. G." IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition. no. Dec. Phu. 299 . M. pp. pp. AlHajri. 3. 2006. 55-62. El-Hawary. 7. 9. I. Ippolito. vol. Wu. M. Goethal. CCECE 2007. 1974." IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. Belman. M. 1 2005. M. Vakilian. Ehsan." IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting. "Bibliography on load models for power flow and dynamic performance simulation." IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings. 4.html. 33. BC. HAESEN. F. Canada. C. DRIESEN. 1995. R. "Risk based optimization for strategical planning of electrical distribution systems with dispersed generation. and M. 1351-1362. vol. J.2005. Taylor. H. 901-915. and L. 11. 2003. T. 1. E. 1993. R. Kersting and R. Dillon. Bologna. vol.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] P. no. W." 2007. 523-538. N. Power System Voltage Stability Mcgraw-Hill. vol. Radial distribution systems. "Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing. vol. M. M. pp. no. pp. pp. Mithulananthan. vol. C. and B. De Mello. "Optimal placement and sizing of distributed generator units using genetic optimization algorithms." The Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology. 1290-1293. pp. "Power system modeling. 2000. AlRashidi. Sanseverino.wolfram. 2." Electric Power Components and Systems. "Determining the impact of distributed generation on power systems." 20th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. "http://reference. F. Barker and R. Dugan. Vuinovich. PLUYMERS. pp. E.com/ mathematica/ tutorial/ ConstrainedOptimizationGlobalNumerical. 1989. 1645-1656. W. 499-504.